Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 5
February 11, 1954
NUMBER 39, PAGE 4,12b

Catholic Use Of "Father"

Editorial

One serious barrier to any kind of intelligent discussion between Catholics and non-Catholics is the prejudice (on both sides) growing out of misunderstandings. Catholics have been drilled from infancy in a certain stereotyped line of thought; non-Catholics have been drilled almost as assiduously in an opposite type of reasoning. And until sincere and reasonable people can learn to discuss their differences with tolerance and sympathy, there can be little real progress made toward the desired goal of unity.

As a case in point, consider the Catholic use of the religious title "Father." This is a term of reverence and honor used by the devout Catholic in his reference to, or addressing of, a priest. The non-Catholic immediately goes to Matthew 23:9, where Jesus said, "And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven," and declares that the Catholic is in open and indefensible rebellion against a plain prohibition of scripture! It is so simple! Jesus prohibited the use of "father" as a religious title; the Catholics use it; therefore, the Catholics are in rebellion against Christ. So argues the non-Catholic.

But the Catholic rejoins, "Did not Paul call Timothy his 'son' in the faith (1 Tim. 1:2), and did he not say to the Corinthians, 'For though we have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel'?" (1 Cor. 4:15) Then he argues that since Paul referred to Timothy as his "son," and described his relationship to the Corinthians as that of a "father," it is perfectly right and permissible to use the term "Father" in addressing a priest, or referring to one. Obviously Paul was not Timothy's fleshly or physical father; any more than he was the fleshly father of all those in Corinth to whom his letter was addressed. It is clear then that Paul used the word in a spiritual sense; he was spiritual "Father" to both Timothy and the Corinthians. As an apostle of Christ he had authority to command, enjoin, and decree, just as a physical father has authority over his children. It is in this sense of spiritual "fatherhood" that the devout Catholic honors and respects his priest. It is no violation of the prohibition of Christ, else Paul would not have used it. "Catholics show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself and the dispenser of His mysteries." (Baltimore Catechism)

What, then, is the true solution of this problem? How can an honest man know what is right? For the non-Catholic quotes the words of Christ, and the Catholic quotes the words of Paul. Are Christ and Paul at cross-purposes with one another?

The answer to this problem is not difficult to an open mind: First of all, let us assume that the Catholic contention is right; and that Paul used the term "Father" in precisely the sense that Catholics use it. Is it not clear then that the ONLY priest whom a Catholic could rightly address as "Father" would be the one who had converted him? The indiscriminate application of the term to every priest is the antithesis of what Paul was arguing in 1 Corinthians 4:15. He was contending that HE ALONE was their "father," and though they might have ten thousand "tutors" it was to him ONLY that the term "father" could be rightly applied. This is also the case with Timothy, who was converted by Paul. (Acts 16:1-5)

Do we ever have any record of Peter or James or John or any other claiming to be "father" to the Corinthians? Or is there any record that any of them ever referred to Peter or Barnabas or James as their "father"? Of course not. If the Catholic is right in saying that 1 Corinthians 4:15 justifies the use of "father" as a religious title, then by the same token he is wrong in referring that title to anybody save the one who converted him.

But what was it that Jesus condemned in Matthew 23:9? What did he mean in his prohibition of the use of the word "father"? Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, makes this comment:

"The prohibition is against loving, and in any religious matter, using such titles, signifying dominion over the faith of others." (Commentary: Matthew 23:9)

Butler gives the same judgment:

"The prohibition, 'Call no man your father,' forbids the exercise of spiritual authority over the conscience, and equally forbids the disciples of Christ from submitting to such authority." (Butler Bible Works: Matthew 23:9)

In what sense does the Catholic use the word "father" as applied to his priest? Does he use it only to apply to the one who converted him (as Timothy and the Corinthians might have used it in reference to Paul); or does he use it to signify that the one addressed as "Father" has the right to exercise spiritual authority over him and dominion over the faith he holds?

All Catholics with whom we have ever discussed the matter (and the number is not small) readily state that they do not restrict the term to the one who converted them, and do use it to "show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself and the dispenser of His mysteries."

This is precisely the kind of usage Christ condemned! He was teaching the equality of his disciples ("for all ye are brethren"), and inveighing against the spirit of the Pharisees which sought places of honor and authority. To the degree that the title "Father" carries any "reverence and honor" which would set a priest above others who are not priests, to that degree it violates the teaching of Christ. And if it does NOT set the priest apart and show him "reverence and honor" then it is meaningless and worthless as a title. Why is the priest called "Father"? Why, because he exercises spiritual authority! He is NOT called "Father" because he converted the one so calling him, but because he has spiritual authority over that one.

The question goes right to the heart of Catholicism. It grows out of the Catholic contention that the authority of Christianity resides in men (even today). The Christian concept is that the authority resides in Christ and not in men; and that the authority of Christ is exercised through his inspired word — the Bible. — F.Y.T.